What They Do in Our Name

Sheldon Richman
Campaign for Liberty
August 12, 2010

Thanks to Wikileaks and heroic leakers inside the military, we now know the U.S. government has killed many more innocent Afghan civilians than we were aware of heretofore. We also know that American military and intelligence personnel roam Afghanistan assassinating suspected bad guys. Sometimes they kill people they later acknowledge weren’t bad guys at all. “Bad guys,” like “Taliban,” is implicitly defined as anyone who resists the U.S. occupation force and the corrupt puppet government it keeps in power.

What other atrocities are our misleaders and misrepresentatives committing in our name?

Let’s get something straight: to be an enemy of American occupation, bombing, and “nation building” is not the same thing as being an enemy of America or its people. It’s time Americans understood that. When you invade another country and people there object, even forcibly, they are not aggressors. You are. To understand this, imagine our being invaded by a foreign military force. Would resistance be aggression?

Alex Jones: Big brother is watching you

Russia Today
Aug 11, 2010

Verizon and Google have announced that they hope to regulate the internet by controlling access and the speed of the internet to different websites. In other privacy news, Air France has announced that they will install cameras into every seat to watch their passengers; civil rights activists are crying foul saying it invades people’s privacy too much.

Wave Goodbye To Brand Obama

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Administration spokesman Robert Gibbs’ angry retort that left-wing critics of President Obama ought to be “drug tested” because they are “crazy” marks a crucial benchmark in the accelerating evisceration of Obama’s public support, even amongst liberals who, having exalted Obama as some kind of savior, are now realizing that he is merely a servant to the banking elite.

Gibbs’ meltdown occurred during an interview with The Hill newspaper, in which he slammed the “professional left” for criticizing Obama for failing to live up to his ideological promises.

“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”

While some of the criticism coming from the left is undoubtedly over side-issues like gay marriage or gays in the military, much of it centers around Obama’s continuation and indeed intensification of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as his failure to close Guantanamo Bay, in addition to his cosying up to Wall Street while abandoning Main Street as the economic decline worsens.

Our warnings right at the beginning of the Obama presidency, explored at length in Alex Jones’ documentary The Obama Deception, are now coming to fruition, as Americans from across the entire political spectrum come to the understanding that they’ve been the victims of a monumental hoax.

The HIll article leaps to Obama’s defense, claiming he is “Overseeing the end of the Iraq war, with the U.S. on schedule to end its combat operations by the end of this month.”

However, as we have previously documented, Obama now has more American troops deployed than at any time under Bush. The date for withdrawing troops from Iraq is continually pushed back, and even then it is admitted that a “residual force” of tens of thousands of troops will remain to occupy the country.

In addition, Obama has also expanded the Bush-era bombing raids into Pakistan.

Of the troops that do come home from Iraq, the vast majority look like they’ll be needed for the next invasion, should Obama support an Israeli attack on Iran as many expect in the upcoming months.

As we have previously documented, Obama has broken every major promise he made during the campaign trail, from ending warrentless secret surveillance of American citizens, to bringing Bush administration officials to justice for the illegal torture program, to closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

With the millions of Americans who were hypnotized into voting for the corporate marketing creation Obama now waking up to the fact that they were lied to and that Barry Soetoro is nothing more than a sock puppet for the elite, the administration can be expected to become increasingly desperate in its bid to cling on to power.

As we have warned, a war on Iran could prove to be the perfect distraction from Obama’s domestic troubles, rallying the country around an external threat and reversing his plummeting approval ratings.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct

Ironic it may be that the “peace candidate” will be forced to play the war card as a last resort to rescue his political dynasty, but he can count on the support of an army of neo-cons who have been calling for an attack on Iran since the early years of the Bush presidency.

Similarly, as Robert Shapiro, former senior advisor to President Bill Clinton, made clear in a Financial Times article last month, a terror attack on the scale of 9/11 or the Oklahoma City bombing would do wonders to address Obama’s “growing credibility crisis” and reinstate Americans’ belief in his leadership.

Whether the string pullers behind Obama will make a late and desperate lunge to rescue his tattered credibility, or whether they will merely hand over the baton to another neo-con to continue the same globalist agenda, remains to be seen. But what we can now say for certain is that Brand Obama has been completely demolished, with the reality behind the facade exposed for all to see, and Obama’s political legacy being forever characterized by deceit, deception and misplaced hope.

The Cycle of Violence in Afghanistan

Ron Paul
Campaign For Liberty
Aug 10, 2010

Last week the National Bureau of Economic Research published a report on the effect of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq that confirmed what critics of our foreign policy have been saying for years: the killing of civilians, although unintentional, angers other civilians and prompts them to seek revenge. This should be self-evident.

The Central Intelligence Agency has long acknowledged and analyzed the concept of blowback in our foreign policy. It still amazes me that so many think that attacks against our soldiers occupying hostile foreign lands are motivated by hatred toward our system of government at home or by the religion of the attackers. In fact, most of the anger towards us is rooted in reactions towards seeing their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and other loved ones being killed by a foreign army. No matter our intentions, the violence of our militarism in foreign lands causes those residents to seek revenge if innocents are killed. One does not have to be Muslim to react this way, just human.

Our battle in Afghanistan resembles the battle against the many-headed Hydra monster in Greek mythology. According to Former General Stanley McChrystal’s so-called insurgent math, for every insurgent killed, 10 more insurgents are created by the collateral damage to civilians. Every coalition attack leads to 6 retaliatory attacks against our troops within the following six weeks, according to the NBER report. These retaliatory attacks must then be acted on by our troops, leading to still more attacks, and so it goes. Violence begets more violence. Eventually more and more Afghanis will view American troops with hostility and seek revenge for the death of a loved one. Meanwhile, we are bleeding ourselves dry, militarily and economically.

Some say if we leave, the Taliban will be strengthened. However, those who make that claim ignore the numerous ways our interventionist foreign policy has strengthened groups like the Taliban over the years. I’ve already pointed out how we serve as excellent recruiters for them by killing civilians. Last week I pointed out how our foreign aid, to Pakistan specifically, makes it into Taliban coffers. And of course we provided the Taliban with aid and resources in the 1980s, when they were our strategic allies against the Soviet Union. For example — our CIA supplied them with Stinger missiles to use against the Soviets, which are strikingly similar to the ones now allegedly used against us on the same battlefield, according to those Wikileaks documents. As usual, our friends have a funny way of turning against us. Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein are also prime examples. Yet Congress never seems to acknowledge the blowback that results from our interventionism of the past.

Our war against the Taliban is going about as well as our war on drugs, or our war on poverty, or any of our government’s wars — they all tend to create more of the thing they purport to eradicate, thereby dodging any excuse to draw down and come to an end. It is hard to imagine ever “winning” anything this way.

We have done enough damage in Afghanistan, both to the Afghan people, and to ourselves. It’s time to re-evaluate the situation. It’s time to come home.

Biofuels emit 400 percent more CO2 than regular fuels

Ethan A. Huff
Natural News
Aug 10, 2010

A recent report issued by the European Union has revealed that biofuels, or fuel made from living, renewable sources, is not really all that beneficial to the environment. Rather than reduce the net carbon footprint as intended, biofuels can produce four times more carbon dioxide pollution than conventional fossil fuels do.

Common biofuels like corn ethanol, which has become a popular additive in gasoline, and soy biodiesel, which is being used in commercial trucks and other diesel-fueled vehicles, are often considered to be environmentally-friendly because they are renewable. But in order to grow enough of these crops to use for both food and fuel, large swaths of land around the world are being converted into crop fields for growing biofuels.

In other words, millions of acres of lush rainforests are becoming corn and soy fields in order to provide enough of these resources for their new uses. The net carbon footprint of growing crops for fuel is far higher than what is emitted from simple fossil fuel usage.

Having A Supply Of Healthy Foods That Last Just Makes Sense

According to the report, American soybeans have an indirect carbon footprint of 340kg of CO2 per gigajoule (GJ), while conventional diesel and gasoline create only 85kg/GJ. Similarly, the European rapeseed, a plant similar to the North American canola, indirectly produces 150kg/GJ because additional land in other nations has been converted to grow rapeseed for food in order to replace the native crops that are now being grown for fuel.

Ironically, the amount of direct and indirect resources used to grow food for fuel is quite high compared to that of conventional fossil fuels. Biofuels also do not burn as efficiently and can be rough on the engines they fuel. Ethanol-enriched gasoline can also reduce gas mileage efficiency by upwards of 25 percent, depending on the vehicle.

Growing food for fuel ends up increasing the price of food for consumers. It also puts additional strain on families, many of whom are already having difficulties making ends meet in current economic conditions.

When all is said and done, biofuels seem to be a whole lot of hype with not a lot of benefit. Environmentally, fiscally and practically, biofuels are a disaster. Fossil fuels may not be an ideal form of clean energy, but at this point in time, they make a lot more sense than biofuels.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en…

http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/ne…

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/b…

Across Texas, 60,000 babies of noncitizens get U.S. birthright

SHERRY JACOBSON
The Dallas Morning News
Aug 9, 2010

As Republican members of Congress press for changes to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, preventing automatic citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrants, opponents insist the debate is not really about babies.

Instead, they say it is about politics and votes – not fixing the immigration system.

Still, the debate could resonate in Texas, where not only 1.5 million illegal immigrants are estimated to reside but at least 60,000 babies are added to their households annually.

Parkland Memorial Hospital delivers more of those babies than any other hospital in the state. Last year at Parkland, 11,071 babies were born to women who were noncitizens, about 74 percent of total deliveries. Most of these women are believed to be in the country illegally.

Froot Loops contaminated with 2-methylnaphthalene chemical

Mike Adams
Natural News
Aug 8, 2010

As cereal lovers sat down to enjoy their bowls of Froot Loops, Honey Smacks, Apple Jacks and Corn Pops, they had no idea they were about to eat a petrochemical called 2-methylnaphthalene. This chemical is “a constituent of petroleum, automobile exhaust, … waste water from coal gasification, coke and shale oil production…” and other similarly bizarre sources. So what was 2-methylnaphthalene doing in boxes of Kellogg cereals?

It turns out this chemical was most likely released from the wax paper cereal liners that hold the cereal. This could have been due to the heating of the wax paper when it’s sealed. This causes the off-gassing of chemicals which can then be absorbed by the cereal itself.

The effect was so bad that the FDA received dozens of complaints from consumers who could taste and smell the chemical. Some said the cereal made them feel ill.

Kellogg, of course, immediately recalled 28 million boxes of its cereals, and the FDA began an investigation. The investigation essentially consisted of the FDA asking Kellogg what went wrong, and the Kellogg explained that 2-methylnaphthalene accidentally got into the cereals from the plastic liners, and the FDA said “Okay” and concluded its investigation.

What’s missing from this investigation? The question of how toxic 2-methylnaphthalene really is to the human body.

Having A Supply Of Healthy Foods That Last Just Makes Sense

Unknown toxicity
You see, nobody knows the answer to that question. Not Kellogg and not the FDA. 2-methylnaphthalene was one of the 65,000 or so chemicals grandfathered in as “assumed to be safe” under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 — which we now know to be a scientific whitewash. Just because a chemical is declared to be safe by a regulation doesn’t alter the laws of chemistry.

You see, these chemicals have never been tested for human safety. So when consumers are exposed to them, doctors aren’t even sure how to treat them. The FDA has no clue what the chemical does either. And just to avoid anyone asking the really tough questions, the FDA’s own web page describing this “investigation” doesn’t even mention the chemical! (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Publi…)

The FDA website says, nonchalatantly:

“It appears that the cereals were packaged in cereal boxes with waxed paper liners that imparted bad taste and odor to the food. The wax paper liners appear to be the source of the problem.”

No mention of 2-methylnaphthalene, see? Wouldn’t want people asking too many questions…

The FDA, for its part, did absolutely nothing to fine Kellogg over this mass exposure of the American public to 2-methylnaphthalene. In fact, even though the FDA knows nothing about the safety of 2-methylnaphthalene, it basically declared the whole issue to be a non-issue and let Kellogg go right back to business packaging its cereals in wax paper liners once again.

But I decided to ask a few questions about 2-methylnaphthalene. For starters, the chemical doesn’t sound safe. The last half of the word is, “napthalene” which sounds a whole lot like a petroleum chemical, wouldn’t you say?

And of course, it is a petroleum chemical. The Scorecard.org website categorizes it as a “respiratory toxicant,” a term it further defines with this general description: (http://www.scorecard.org/health-eff…)

“Exposure to chemical substances can cause adverse effects on the respiratory system, which consists of the nasal passages, pharynx, trachea, bronchi, and lungs. Respiratory toxicity can include a variety of acute and chronic pulmonary conditions, including local irritation, bronchitis, pulmonary edema, emphysema, and cancer.”

The Speclab.com website says the “reported effects of methylated naphthalene” (a sister chemical related to 2-methylnaphthalene) include “skin irritation and skin photosensitization.”

Related chemicals are commonly used to manufacture moth balls (moth repellants). Some of the potential health reactions caused by exposure to this class of chemicals are described here: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Publ…

Is it safe to eat cereal?
Interestingly, 2-methylnaphthalene isn’t the only petrochemical-derived substance found in Froot Loops. The cereal is also made with artificial colors which are derived from petrochemicals. Sometimes I wonder if eating a box of Froot Loops has more in common with swallowing Gulf Coast oil sludge than eating real food, but that’s just my opinion.

The question on the minds of many today is as follows: Is it safe to eat breakfast cereals?

The most accurate answer is both yes and no. In the short term, eating Froot Loops laced with 2-methylnaphthalene probably isn’t going to kill you. Nobody died from consuming this contaminated cereal. But the bigger question is what happens over a lifetime of exposure to chemicals.

Is it really safe to eat cereals packaged in wax liners? What about cereals in plastic bags? What about BPA and other chemicals?

After writing about foods and health for seven years, I’ve come to the conclusion that virtually all food packaging materials have some sort of health risk, from the aluminum used in soda cans to the plastic used in deli meats. The best material of all is, of course, glass. Glass is perfectly safe for food contact and it leaches nothing into your food. Then again, it’s breakable and is therefore more expensive while even posing a safety hazard to children.

My educated guess is that nearly all foods purchased in grocery stores are contaminated with multiple chemicals. Hence the reason for buying food from farmers markets and food coops. The basic rule of thumb for food safety is that anything in a box or a plastic package might pose some risk of chemical contamination, even though that risk may be miniscule in most products. This risk extends, by the way, to superfoods and nutritional supplements packaged in plastic. They aren’t immune to the laws of chemistry, although it could be argued that people consuming superfoods have better health defenses against chemical contaminants.

Most chemical contamination of foods, by the way, goes entirely unnoticed by consumers. People are eating chemical contaminants right now, every single day, that are far more dangerous than the levels of 2-methylnaphthalene found in Froot Loops. Just the sodium nitrite found in hot dogs is undoubtedly orders of magnitude more dangerous to human health. And let’s not even talk about aspartame, MSG or partially hydrogenated oils…

So to answer the question: Are Kellogg’s cereals safe to eat now? Well, they’re no more dangerous than all the other dead processed foods made with petrochemicals and refined sugar. But I personally wouldn’t call those products “safe” in the first place.